Export bans on high-end hardware may seem like a tool of strategic restraint. In reality, they are accelerating China’s technological independence, undermining U.S. influence, and weakening America’s ability to shape the global future of artificial intelligence.

The logic behind the bans is simple: deny China access to cutting-edge chips, and you delay its development of advanced AI systems used for surveillance, cyberwarfare, or military operations. But the real-world effect is often the opposite. China does not stop building. It builds without us, with more urgence and independence.

Take DeepSeek, a Chinese AI firm that achieved an efficiency breakthrough resulting from being constrained by less powerful hardware.^[1] Unable to access Nvidia’s top-tier GPUs, the company redesigned its architecture to run efficiently on more limited chips. By prioritizing computational efficiency and low-level GPU tuning, DeepSeek advanced despite the constraints. Hardware scarcity didn’t block innovation. It provoked it.

We’ve seen this before. In World War I, the United States relied on German optical glass, critical for rangefinders, binoculars, and periscopes. When war cut off the supply, the U.S. faced a strategic crisis. But denial didn’t paralyze American industry. It catalyzed it. Backed by wartime urgency, firms like Bausch & Lomb and institutions like the National Bureau of Standards created a domestic optics industry from scratch.^[2] The U.S. didn’t freeze in place. It caught up and then took the lead.

Every Chinese data center running Nvidia chips today is a node of American influence. As long as Chinese AI systems run on U.S. hardware, the U.S. retains leverage over performance, updates, supply chains, and, most importantly, alignment with global standards. That leverage vanishes the moment China builds a full-stack alternative. Export controls don’t preserve dominance. They motivate self-reliance.

This dynamic also applies to software. In early 2024, a sophisticated backdoor nearly compromised a core open-source utility called XZ Utils.^[3] A rogue contributor spent years building trust with project maintainers before inserting a subtle exploit during the release build process. The malicious code was not visible in the open repository and could have granted remote access to Linux systems worldwide. It was discovered only because one engineer noticed an unusual delay anomaly.

That discovery was a triumph of global transparency. But it was also a warning. Open-source software is not immune to manipulation just because its code is public. Governance matters. Who writes the code, who merges it, and who sets the defaults matters. If China dominates the development of open-source infrastructure, it will quietly shape what the world considers “normal.” Backdoors won’t need to be hidden if they’re built into the standard itself.

This is not theoretical. Much of the world’s AI stack, from model training frameworks to distributed computing libraries, depends on open-source tools. If the technical backbone of those tools becomes defined by institutions aligned with Chinese state priorities, the U.S. will lose more than influence. It will lose visibility. It will be using “open” software which is open only in name.

The real danger of ceding the hardware layer is that the software follows. And when both migrate abroad, so does the power to define what remains visible, what gets reviewed, and what becomes hidden in plain sight.

Meanwhile, the bans aren’t airtight. Chinese companies continue to acquire restricted chips via overseas intermediaries and black-market resellers. Enforcement is difficult, and circumvention is increasingly sophisticated. In the process, American firms lose access to a market they once led while China accelerates efforts to replace them.

Consider what we’re giving up. It is not just the economic value of a $4 trillion company like Nvidia selling globally. More importantly, it also includes the geopolitical leverage that comes from setting the technical standards others must follow. When the world builds on American platforms, America helps shape the rules of the road.

By forcing China to build its own AI ecosystem, we heighten, not reduce, the risk of miscalculation, misalignment, and cyber escalation. The U.S. gains nothing by building a digital Iron Curtain around an adversary that is fully capable of building its own infrastructure and often moves faster under constraint.

If we want to shape the future of artificial intelligence, we need to be in the room – and in the rack.

A new tech startup plans to become “the stock market of litigation financing” by allowing everyday Americans to bet on civil lawsuits through the purchase (and trade) of associated crypto tokens. In doing so, the company hopes to provide funding to individuals who would otherwise not be able to pursue claims.

Ryval allows its users to purchase tokens to fund lawsuits. Strachan succinctly describes Ryval as a “crypto-infused and lawsuit-focused GoFundMe.”

Kyle Roche, one of the founders of Ryval, states that its goal is to “make access to justice more affordable.” Strachan contrasts Roche’s claim by proposing that Ryval’s website appears to instead prioritize the potential returns for investors.

Empowering everyday people to leverage the judicial system is a worthwhile cause. It is not uncommon for people with valid claims to walk away harmed because of a lack of knowledge or resources. For example, we all likely know someone who has had a valid warranty claim denied for something like an electronic device or motor vehicle. The idea of empowering David against the Goliaths who have continually avoided accountability due to resource imbalance is exciting, righteous, and popular.

That said, as Strachan points out, litigation financing is nothing new. A well-known instance involved Peter Thiel funding Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media. In fact, Legalist is a litigation financing organization that received funding from the Thiel Foundation.

What makes Ryval’s proposal on litigation financing different is crypto. Ryval states the advantage from crypto is that it lowers the barriers to leverage the judicial system. In doing so, more people can participate in the judicial system by purchasing tokens. These tokens can be redeemed for a potential windfall at the end of litigation. Token owners may also buy and sell them during a case at a price of their choosing.

With this democratization, I can immediately think of two concerns. First, a noted criticism of litigation financing generally is that it may result in more cases, clogging up an already clogged judicial system. While a practical criticism, if the system becomes infused with cases from vulnerable populations with valid claims, this scenario appears worthwhile. Justice should be accessible to all, particularly those whose legitimate claims have been continually ignored because of their lack of resources. The other concern is particularly noteworthy. Unaccredited investors are at a significant disadvantage compared to accredited investors due to a one-year lockup period. If Ryval’s goal is to democratize access to the courts, invigorate interest in the judicial system, and hold the previously unaccountable accountable, that pursuit is meaningful and likely without controversy. However, should Ryval truly intend to leverage its platform to create a betting market as Strachan suggests, this one-year lockup period puts unaccredited investors at a significant disadvantage. A party’s chance at success can significantly change within a year. Summary judgment may even be granted before a year, ending the case entirely, and leaving unaccredited investors stuck holding the bag. This result may only highlight and exacerbate the accredited versus unaccredited investor divide, which is counter to Ryval’s goal.

Setting aside these above concerns and Ryval’s positioning of litigation financing as a betting ring, the concept itself is interesting. It’s like a litigation focused Goldfinch in that it shares a story, vets it, leverages crypto for crowdfunding, and distributes the funds to the parties. Perhaps the true takeaway is that Ryval continues the march towards a popular Web3 goal: the capability to financially organize around almost anything. Although an initiative towards the decentralization of the web, Web3 empowers individuals into collective action. I look forward to reading more about these initiatives and their outcomes. The web is exciting again.

Williams also has often relied in meetings on a pocket-size notebook, and colleagues say they make sure to follow up on any part of the conversation they see him write down.

This tidbit is fascinating to me. How come Williams uses a paper notebook? This is the Chief Operating Officer at Apple, a company whose iPhone is, frankly, the most ubiquitous pocket-size notebook around.

Admittedly, I, too, prefer a paper notebook to write down thoughts, even though I really want to just use my phone for notes. Phones make more sense. It’s always with me, my writing is in the cloud and not stuck in one spot, and software makes note taking more organized. There’s no readily apparent downside. Yet I still carry a notebook and pen with me where ever I go.

I find Williams’s habit much more interesting when transposed against Scott Forstall’s note taking habits (paywall):

Forstall takes detailed notes without pen, paper, or laptop. “He listens to you and he starts typing on his iPhone,” says Matt Murphy, a partner at Kleiner Perkins and the manager of a fund at the firm that invests in iOS developers. “You’re thinking he’s not listening and sending a text message, then you realize he’s taking notes.”

Perhaps that’s part of why I eschew using my phone to take notes. I feel people think, actively or subconsciously, I’m ignoring them. Their immediate perception is a bias I have to overcome. When I take notes using a notebook, people seem to immediately think I’m actively listening to them, taking notes

There’s also the pleasant, tactile, and near instantaneous feel of using a notebook. You pull it out of your pocket and start scribbling away. For some reason, taking notes on a phone feels less accessible in comparison. Truly, I don’t believe this feeling is quantifiably objective. It might be easier and more efficient to use my phone. But yet, given the choice, I nearly always opt to use a paper notebook.

Based on my personal interactions, it seems Forstall’s phone preference is the minority. Here’s hoping using phones to take notes eventually becomes more prevalent and socially acceptable. I’ll do my part to keep using Cultured Code’s fantastic Things 3 more often as part of my workflow. Maybe I’ll preface pulling out my phone with a “Let me write this down.”

Creating an account for each individual app and website can be painful. Accounts create friction and get in the way of people immediately using the product. Accounts are, however, necessary. How else would you access your personalized social media, purchase products, or access your online finances?

People will generally take the path of least resistance. Developers want to reduce friction. Thus, single sign-on became popular. As noted in my examples above, if a company can tie social media, purchase information, financial information, and other personalized data together, that’s very desirable to advertisers. Advertisers continue to amass as much data as they can.

Thankfully, with Sign In with Apple, Apple is using its unique, market leading position to push back. Sign In with Apple allows clear choice of what information you choose to share with the app or website. It also prevents cross app or website tracking with anonymized email addresses, should you so choose.

What I find fascinating is Apple requiring its Sign In to be included for apps that support other third-party sign-in options. That requirement demonstrates Apple’s willingness to throw its weight around for privacy protections. Some may deem it as overreaching but frankly, amassing as much of my data as possible is overreaching.

I imagine advertisers are unhappy with Apple’s decision. I, however, am thrilled a market leader is pushing back against the insatiable data beast. Here’s hoping Apple’s approach empowers users to care about data privacy.

We’ve not always lived up to our aspiration of keeping gamers at the center of everything we do when it comes to the experience they’ve had on Windows.

The way Microsoft has pivoted within the past few years is incredibly impressive. While other companies seek to isolate themselves and their customers into a locked ecosystem, Microsoft’s open approach is both welcome and refreshing. Who in 2010 would have predicted Google would be the one locking things down while Microsoft opens things up?